Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 190901
November 12, 2014
AMADA COTONER-ZACARIAS, Petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES ALFREDO AND THE HEIRS REVILLA OF PAZ REVILLA,
Respondents.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Well-settled is the rule that "conveyances by virtue of a forged signature ...
are void ab initio [as] [t]he absence of the essential [requisites] of consent and
cause or consideration in these cases rendered the contract inexistent[.]"
Before us is a petition for review filed by Amada Cotoner-Zacarias against
respondent spouses Alfredo Revilla and Paz Castillo-Revilla, praying that this
court render a decision "reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
and Court of Appeals and declaring the transfer of title to the Petitioner and
then to her successors-in-interest as valid and binding as against the
respondents."
The Court of Appeals summarized the facts as follows.
Alfredo Revilla and Paz Castillo-Revilla (Revilla spouses) are the owners in
fee simple of a 15,000-square-meter unregistered parcel of land in Silang,
Cavite, covered by Tax Declaration No. 7971.
In 1983, the Revilla spouses faced financial difficulties in raising funds for
Alfredo Revillas travel to Saudi Arabia, so Paz Castillo-Revilla borrowed
money from Amada Cotoner-Zacarias (Amada). By way of security, the
parties verbally agreed that Amada would take physical possession of the
property, cultivate it, then use the earnings from the cultivation to pay the loan
and realty taxes. Upon full payment of the loan, Amada would return the
property to the Revilla spouses.
Unknown to the Revilla spouses, Amada presented a fictitious document
entitled "Kasulatan ng Bilihanng Lupa" before the Provincial Assessor of
Cavite. This document was executed on March 19, 1979 with the Revilla
spouses as sellers and Amada as buyer of the property. Consequently, Tax
Declaration No. 7971 in the name of the Revilla spouses was cancelled, and
Tax Declaration No. 19773 in the name of Amada was issued.
On August 25, 1984, Amada sold the property to the spouses Adolfo and
Elvira Casorla (Casorla spouses) by "Deed of Absolute SaleUnregistered
Land." Tax Declaration No. 30411-A was later issued in the name of the
Casorla spouses.
In turn, the Casorla spouses executed a deed of absolute sale dated
December 16, 1991 in favor of the spouses Rodolfo and Yolanda Sun (Sun
1
spouses). Tax Declaration Nos. 30852-A and 18584 were issued in favor of
the Sun spouses.
In December 1994, Alfredo Revilla returned from Saudi Arabia. He asked
Amada why she had not returnedtheir tax declaration considering their full
payment of the loan. He then discovered that the propertys tax declaration
was already in the name of the Sun spouses.
On February 15, 1995, the Revilla spouses were served a copy of the
answer in the land registration case filed by the Sun spouses for the
property. The Revilla spouses then saw a copy of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan
ng Lupa" and noticed that their signatures as sellers were forged.
They then demanded the cancellation of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa"
from Amada and all subsequent transfers of the property, its reconveyance,
and the restoration of its tax declaration in their name. Amada failed to take
action.
On November 17, 1995, the Revillaspouses filed a complaint before the
Tagaytay Regional Trial Court for the annulment of sales and transfers of title
and reconveyance of the property with damages against Amada, the Casorla
spouses, the Sun spouses, and the Provincial Assessor of Cavite.
In her answer, Amada denied that the property was used as a security for the
Revilla spouses loan. Instead, she claimed that the Revilla spouses
voluntarily executed the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" in her favor on March
19, 1979. She added that the Revilla spouses cause of action already
prescribed.
For their part, the Sun spouses argued good faith belief that Amada was the
real owner of the property asAmada showed them a tax declaration in her
name and the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" allegedly executed by the
Revilla spouses. When the Sun spouses discovered there was another sale
with the Casorla spouses, they were assured by Amada that she had already
bought back the property from the Casorla spouses. Subsequently, the
Casorla spouses executed a deed ofabsolute sale dated December 16, 1991
in favor of the Sun spouses. They also argued prescription against the
Revilla spouses, and prayed for damages against Amada by way of
crossclaim.
On August 3, 2006, the Regional Trial Court found the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan
ng Lupa" to be a fictitious document, and ruled in favor of the Revilla
spouses:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. Declaring the sales/transfers from Tax Declaration No. 7971, s. 1980 to Tax
Declaration No. 18584, s. 1994 as NULL and VOID, without valid
transmission of title and interest from the original owners, plaintiffs herein and
consequently, entitling plaintiffs to reinstatement and reconveyance of their
title/taxdeclaration as well as possession of the subject property;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
On the alleged forgery, petitioner submits that the court misapplied the
principle that "he who alleges not he who denies must prove" when it stated
that she had the burden of proving the due execution of the deed of absolute
sale. Since the Revilla spouses alleged that the deedwas a forged document,
they had the burden of proving the forgery. She then cites the trial court in
that "[a]ccordingly, the National Bureauof Investigation was not able to
ascertain the genuineness of the signatureof plaintiff Paz Revilla because of
lack of sufficient sample signatures. . . ."
On the prescription argument, the parties live in a very small barangay. While
Alfredo Revilla worked in Saudi Arabia, he admitted returning to the
Philippines twice a year, while his wife never left Silang, Cavite, and yet the
Revilla spouses never questioned the activities on the property for more than
16 years.
On the proper docket fees, petitioner contends that the Revilla spouses paid
docket fees based on their prayer for actual damages of P50,000.00, moral
damages of P50,000.00, and attorneys fee of P80,000.00, when they should
have based it on P12,000,000.00, the value of the property they alleged in
their supplemental pre-trial brief.
Lastly, petitioner argues that the property is conjugal in nature, but the court
never declared that respondent Paz Castillo-Revillas signature was falsified.
Thus, the sale over her half of the property cannot be declared void. She
adds that the Sun spouses are buyers in good faith for value, making
reinstatement of the property impossible.
Respondents Revilla spouses counter that the factual issue of whether the
"Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" isa falsified document was already
conclusively resolved by the lower courts and, generally, factual findings are
beyond this courts power of review.
On the prescription issue, respondents Revilla spouses argue that an action
or defense to declare a document null is imprescriptible. Laches also does
not apply since they immediately questioned the fraudulent transfers by filing
a complaint in November 1995 upon learning of the questionable documents
in February 1995, after Alfredo had returned from Saudi Arabia in December
1994.
Respondents Revilla spouses contend that they paid the proper docket fees.
The P12,000,000.00 mentioned during pre-trial that petitioner insists should
have been the basis of the fees was neither stated in the complaint nor
awarded by the court.
Respondents Revilla spouses argue that the court did not err in ordering
reinstatement of the property tothem. First, the defense that the Sun spouses
were buyers in good faith is a personal defense that cannot be raised by
petitioner who was not privy to the sale between the Casorla spouses and the
Sun spouses. Second, an alternative prayer for damages cannot be
interpreted as an admission that the relief for reinstatement is not viable.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Third, the transaction happened prior to the effectivity of the Family Code;
thus, Article 172 of the Civil Code applies such that "[t]he wife cannot bind the
conjugal partnership without the husbands consent, except in cases provided
by law." Consequently, the result is the same even if respondent Paz
Castillo-Revilla did not testify that the signature is not hers, as she cannot
bind the entire property without her husbands consent. Lastly, no unjust
enrichment exists since they were deprived of their property for so long.
The issues for this courts resolution are as follows:
First, whether respondents Revilla spouses cause of action is barred by
prescription or laches; Second, whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction
when respondents Revilla spouses paid filing fees based on the P50,000.00
claim for damages in the complaint but stated in their supplemental pre-trial
brief that the property is valued at P12,000,000.00; and
Third, whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the reinstatement and
reconveyance of the property in favor of respondents Revilla spouses.
I.
On the first issue, petitioner argues that respondents Revilla spouses claim is
barred by laches since theyallowed 16 years to lapse, with petitioner having
possession of the property, before filing suit.
Laches has been defined as "the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by the exercise of due
diligence could or should have been done earlier."
The elements that need to be present and proven before an action is
considered barred by laches are the following:
The four basic elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the
defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of
which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2)
delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or notice of the defendants conduct and having been afforded an
opportunity to institute suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his
suit; and, (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
accorded to the complainant or the suit is not held to be barred.
There was no delay by respondents Revilla spouses in asserting their rights
over the property. The lower courts found that respondents Revilla spouses
first learned of the existence of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" in
February 1995 when they were serveda copy of the pleading in the land
registration case instituted by the Sun spouses. They filed their complaint
within the same year, specifically, on November 17, 1995. The lapse of only
nine (9) months from the time they learned of the questionable transfers on
the property cannot be considered as sleeping on their rights.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
In any case, doctrines of equity such as laches apply only in the absence of
statutory law. The Civil Code clearly provides that "[t]he action or defense for
the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe." This
court has discussed:
Lachesis a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and
not courts of equity. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice
outside legality," should be applied only in the absence of, and never against,
statutory law. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The positive mandate of
Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code conferring imprescriptibility to actions for
declaration of the inexistence of a contract should pre-empt and prevail over
all abstract arguments based only on equity. Certainly, laches cannot be set
up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right, and petitioners
can validly vindicate their inheritance despite the lapse of time.
II.
On the second issue, petitioner argues that respondents Revilla spouses did
not pay the correct docket fees. She submits that docket fees paid were
based on the prayer for actual damages of P50,000.00, moral damages of
P50,000.00, and attorneys fee of P80,000.00, when the spouses Revilla
should have based it on P12,000,000.00, the value of the property they
alleged in their supplemental pre-trial brief. Petitioner cites Supreme Court
Circular No. 7 and jurisprudence holding that the payment of proper docket
fees is crucial in vesting courts with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
This court finds that respondents Revilla spouses paid the proper docket
fees, thus, the trial court acquired jurisdiction.
It is true that "[i]t is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a
trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action."
In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, this court
"condemned the practice of counsel who in filing the original complaint
omitted from the prayer any specification of the amount of damages although
the amount of over 78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint." The
court gave the following warning against this unethical practice that serves no
other purpose than to avoid paying the correct filing fees:
The Court serves warning that itwill take drastic action upon a repetition of
this unethical practice. To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all
complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the
amount of damages being prayed for not only inthe body of the pleading but
also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment
of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be
expunged from the record.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket
fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the
Magaspi case in sofar as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is
overturned and reversed. (Emphasis supplied)
This ruling was circularized through Supreme Court Circular No. 7
addressed to all lower court judges and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for dissemination to and guidance for all its members.
The facts of this case differ from Manchester and similar situations envisioned
under the circular. The complaint filed by respondents Revilla spouses
included in its prayer the amount of P50,000.00 as actual damages, without
mention of any other amount in the body of the complaint. No amended
complaint was filed to increase this amount in the prayer. Thus, the Court of
Appeals found as follows:
In the case at bench, the complaint filed by the Spouses Revilla only asked
for actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00. While the Spouses Revilla
mentioned the amount of P12,000,000.00 as actual damages in the pre-trial,
said amount was not stated in the complaint and neither was it awarded by
the lower court in its judgment. Hence, said amount was not even considered
by the court a quo when it awarded damages in favor of the Spouses Revilla.
Considering that the complaint was not formally amended by the spouses to
increase the amount of actual damages being sought, the trial court was not
stripped of its jurisdiction to try the case since the Spouses Revilla correctly
paid the docket fees based merely on what was prayed for in the
complaint.Indeed, the mere mentioning by the Spouses Revilla of the amount
of P12,000,000.00 during the pre-trial is inconsequential, as the trial court
properly acquired jurisdiction over the action when the Spouses Revilla filed
the complaint and paid the requisite filing fees based on the amount as
prayed for in the complaint. (Emphasis supplied)
In Padlan v. Dinglasan, this court reiterated that "[w]hat determines the
jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from
the allegations in the complaint [and] [t]he averments therein and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted."
Petitioner attached copies of the tax declarations and deeds of sale over the
property to the petition. Tax Declaration No. 7971 in the name of respondents
Revilla spouses provides that the land had a market value of P13,500.00,
while the mango trees had a market value of P3,500.00. Petitioner alleged in
her petition that respondents Revilla spouses offered to sell the property to
her for P50,000.00, while the trial court found that the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan
ng Lupa" reflected the amount of P20,000.00. Subsequent tax declarations
in the name of petitioner, the Casorla spouses, and the Sun spouses all
provided for land market values lower than P50,000.00. The deed of sale in
favor of the Casorla spouses states that the assessed value of the property
was P1,400.00, and the consideration for the sale was P50,000.00. The
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
subsequent deed of sale in favor of the Sun spouses provides for the same
amount as consideration.
None of these documents submitted by petitioner indicate an amount in
excess of the P50,000.00 prayed for by respondents Revilla spouses as
actual damages in their complaint. Thus, the basis for the P12,000,000.00
value raised during pre-trial is unclear. Based on the complaint, respondents
Revilla spouses paid the correct docket fees computed from the amounts in
their prayer.
III.
The third issue involves the reinstatement of respondents Revilla spouses in
the property and reconveyance of its tax declaration in their favor.
Petitioner argues that antichresis is a formal contract that must be in writing in
order to be valid. Respondents Revilla spouses were not able to prove the
existence of the alleged antichresis contract. On the other hand, the sale of
the property to petitioner was established by the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng
Lupa" and the testimony of Rosita Castillo, the second wife of the previous
owner, Felimon Castillo.
We affirm the lower courts order of reinstatement and reconveyance of the
property in favor of respondents Revilla spouses.
Respondents Revilla spouses complaint sought "to annul the sales and
transfers of title emanating from Tax Declaration No. 7971 registered in their
name involving a 15,000-square[-]meter unregistered land . . . with prayer for
reconveyance and claims for damages." There was no prayer to declare the
purported contract of sale as antichresis. Thus, respondents Revilla spouses
neither discussed nor used the term "antichresis" in their comment and
memorandum before this court. They focused on the nature of their complaint
as one for annulment of titles on the ground of forgery. At most, the trial
courts summary of respondents Revilla spouses evidence described the
parties agreements as follows:
Plaintiffs evidence and the testimony of plaintiff Alfredo Revilla tend to
indicate that plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of a 15,000-square[-]meter
unregistered land, located at Brgy. Adlas, Silang, Cavite. Their ownership
being evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 7971, s. 1980 (Exh. "A"). Sometime
in 1981, plaintiffs needed money for the travel and deployment of plaintiff
Alfredo to Saudi Arabia. Plaintiff Paz Revilla sought financial help from
defendant Cotoner-Zacarias from whom she was able to obtain a loan but
secured with and by way of mortgage of the subject property. The parties
further agreed that defendant Cotoner Zacarias would take possession of the
subject property and cultivate it with the earnings therefrom to be used to
pay-off the loan and the annual realty taxes on the land.It was their
agreement with defendant Cotoner Zacarias that the latter will rent the subject
property and with that agreement, the lease started sometime in 1981 and
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
94
95
96
subject of the sale is registeredland and the purchase was made from the
registered owner whose title to the land is clean[.]" Our laws have adopted
the Torrens system to strengthen public confidence in land transactions: [T]he
Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the
most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to insure
their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the
sellers title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of losing his acquisition.
If this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and
land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not
necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership.
Necessarily, those who rely in good faith on a clean title issued under the
Torrens system for registered lands must be protected. On the other hand,
those who purchase unregistered lands do so at their own peril.
This good faith argument cannot be considered as this case involves
unregistered land. In any case, as explained by respondents Revilla spouses
in their memorandum, this is a defense personal to the Sun spouses and
cannot be borrowed by petitioner. The Sun spouses no longer raised this
argument on appeal, but only made a partial appeal regarding legal interest
on the award.
WHEREFORE, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the
Court of Appeals dated August 13, 2009 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
97
98
1wphi1
99
100
101